← Back to context

Comment by jessriedel

6 days ago

I think the (disputable) argument is that, for global stability and equilibrium reasons, there should be a general prohibition against kidnapping/assassination of de facto heads of state, regardless of whether they were legitimately elected or are dictators.

49 comments

jessriedel

Reply
esafak  6 days ago

Then nations become stuck with illegitimate leaders. That kind of undesirable stability is called hegemony.

I think these affairs ought to be handled through international bodies. The UN seems to have no mechanism for it.

  • jessriedel  6 days ago

    Most of the people who make the argument I described probably believe the UN is the only legitimate body that could make this decision, based on some combination of practicality, historical precedent, and international agreement. And the UN absolutely has a mechanism for doing it (the security council). But one alternatively might argue the UN is broken/dysfunctional/corrupt enough that it can't be relied on despite having the "proper paperwork", just as national democracies can be for national affairs.

  • woooooo  6 days ago

    Well, as always, who decides the leader is illegitimate? Are the Saudis illegitimate, according the the rubric we put on Maduro?

    The UN deliberately has no mechanism for this because it's a talking shop intended to help avoid war by providing a talking venue. That's the whole idea, they're not the world police, there is no such thing. They're a forum.

    I'm absolutely not defending any given dictator but history shows that every attempt to remove a dictator "for the greater good" is usually 1) selfishly motivated and 2) backfires horribly.

close04  6 days ago

General rules don’t apply to superpowers or the countries they protect. China, US, Russia get to do whatever their military or economic power affords them, unprovoked aggression, war crimes, terror acts.

There are general rules against war crimes and they still happen day after day, under flimsy excuses. Bombed a hospital or a wedding party? There was a suspected terrorist there. White phosphorus over civilians? It was just for the smoke screen. Overthrew a government overseas? Freedom for those poor people.

  • michaelt  6 days ago

    Right but "Don't kidnap/assassinate the enemy leaders" is often a good policy even when nobody will enforce that rule on you by force.

    For example if your country is subject to a terror bombing campaign, it's very tempting to assassinate the one leader who had the power/respect/authority to order the attacks to start but often they're also the only leader who can order the attacks to stop

    In the 1970s/1980s presumably the UK could have had IRA leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness assassinated. But it sure turned out to be useful, in the late 1990s peace process, that the IRA had identifiable, living leaders who could engage in negotiation, sign an agreement, and get the bomb makers to stop making bombs.

  • wiseowise  6 days ago

    Russia is a regional power, though.

    • close04  6 days ago

      The definition is probably not very precise. They started a war of aggression and every other country is tiptoeing around them. Iraq was also a regional power and got a very different treatment. So the “power” line isn’t so clear.

      China on the other hand doesn’t get visibly involved in almost any remote conflict and they’re obviously a (if not the) superpower.

      2 replies →

andsoitis  6 days ago

> , there should be a general prohibition against kidnapping/assassination of de facto heads of state, regardless of whether they were legitimately elected or are dictators.

Since ideas don't execute themselves, who would you pick to enforce this prohibition, never mind even getting 100%(?) alignment from countries what the conditions are for "kidnap", "assassination", and "de facto head of state"?

  • jessriedel  5 days ago

    The UN security council is one reasonable and popular choice, although it has lots of problems.

    But enforcement is not even my point. I'm referring to a moral principle.

IMTDb  6 days ago

Companies can become « too big to fail » and dictatord can become « too powerful to fall » ?

Muromec  6 days ago

We are not hovever optimizing for stabilitybanymore in Kali Yuga that we are living through

Sporktacular  6 days ago

It's not about what should be the case. It IS the case. If we should decide to change that it won't work if one government unilaterally decides who stays or who goes for obvious reasons. Last month we saw Trump prostrate himself before MBS, who is apparently totally legitimate.